A look at how the patriarch's choices have affected his family members

HBO

"I remember the day you came into this world, red-faced and squalling. And now I find you leading a host to war."

–Lady Catelyn Stark

Last night's Game of Thrones, "The Pointy End," picks up immediately after last week's stunning cliffhanger, which saw Ned Stark betrayed by Littlefinger as Joffrey Lannister took the iron throne. The Starks have lost this round of the game, and Ned's imprisonment sets in motion a conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters that threatens to tear all of Westeros apart.

With every week that passes, I become less and less convinced that Ned is the hero of Game of Thrones. As Ned is finally realizing, he was vastly out of his depth from the moment he arrived in King's Landing. It's hard to fault Ned for having too much virtue, but it's even harder to remain sympathetic to him when his numerous mistakes—born out of both mercy and arrogance—have had such vast consequences for the rest of the Stark family. The proverbial sins of the father have been visited on Ned's sons and daughters, and much of "The Pointy End" is dedicated to the far-reaching consequences Ned's actions have caused for each of the Stark children:

Sansa:

On paper, Sansa's life is straight out of a Disney movie. She was plucked from the icy north and dropped into the kingdom at the heart of Westeros, where she quickly fell in love with the young prince Joffrey. Now that Joffrey has ascended the throne and professed his love for her, Sansa should be preparing for a lifetime of ceremony and childrearing as the queen of Westeros.

Of course, Game of Thrones is anything but a fairy tale. The cracks in Sansa's dream life were beginning to show long before Ned was imprisoned; Cersei's icy condescension, or Joffrey's sudden, alarming cruelty. Sansa was previously torn between the Starks and the Lannisters when she was forced to testify about the fight between Arya and Joffrey, but this time there's no room for middle ground—it's loyalty to her family or loyalty to Joffrey.

Over the past seven episodes, Sansa has drawn a lot of vitriol from Game of Thrones fans. It's not hard to see why: she's a whiny, self-centered brat, and it's certainly easier to muster up sympathy for the other Stark children, like the fiercely independent Arya or the flawed-but-noble Jon Snow.

But Sansa has to be understood, and sympathized with, for who she really is: a self-conscious, impressionable teenage girl dropped into a situation vastly beyond her maturity or understanding. She's not stupid, but she's desperate to cling to her fairy tale romance for as long as she can trick herself into believing it. As Cersei manipulates Sansa into sending word of her father's imprisonment to Catelyn and Robb, it's obvious just how young, confused, and malleable Sansa really is. And at the episode's end, when Sansa steps forward to beg for her father's life in front of the entire royal court, it's an act of courage as genuine and meaningful as Robb's declaration of war on the Lannisters.

Arya:

Ned once imagined the ominous sound of real swords clashing over Arya's playful lesson with her fencing instructor, Syrio. In "The Pointy End," his premonition comes true, as Arya has her first taste of real conflict. As the Lannisters storm through the castle, Syrio steps forward to protect her (and dispatches several Lannister guards with his wooden training sword before it's chopped to pieces; though he reminds the fleeing Arya to say "not today" to death, I'm not optimistic about his own chances).

Syrio's bravery gives Arya the chance to escape, but she's discovered by a boy at the stables, who resolves to capture her to curry favor with the Queen. Half by instinct and half by accident, Arya stabs him through the stomach before fleeing. With her first kill, Arya has prematurely been thrust into adulthood; she's now wandering Westeros, somewhere outside the reach of both her enemies and her family.

Jon Snow:

Though Jon Snow is only a half-brother to the rest of the Stark clan, he's shown more loyalty, sensitivity, and tenderness to his younger siblings than the rest of the Starks. It was Jon who promised Bran that they would explore the north together someday, and Jon who gave Arya the sword that saved her life in tonight's episode. And when Jon hears that Ned has been imprisoned as a traitor, his first thoughts are of his sisters' safety.

As the bastard child of Ned Stark's sole indiscretion, Jon Snow has been dealing with the consequences of Ned's choices for his entire life. Jon's decision to dedicate himself to protecting the Wall comes from a lifetime of maltreatment—for the first time, his talent, not his birthright, would determine his place in the world.

At least, that was the idea. But despite his best efforts, Jon's birth status followed him to the Wall, and in "The Pointy End," he discovers the only thing worse than being a bastard is being the bastard of a traitor. As usual, Jon Snow shows incredible valor in "The Pointy End" (in this case, by slaying the zombie-like White Walker with a well-aimed torch). But despite his best efforts, Westeros is built on familial legacy, and no amount of courage can erase the circumstances of his birth.

Bran:

Throughout this season of Game of Thrones, 11-year-old Bran has proven wiser than his years. Both his age and his injuries preclude him from the battle with the Lannisters, but he aims to contribute in the best way he can: by praying to the old gods for safety (with the aid of caretaker Hodor, whose sudden, inexplicably naked appearance provides a rare moment of levity in a fairly dark episode).

But like Arya, Ned's imprisonment has forced Bran to grow up in a hurry. As Robb departs for the battlefield, he instructs Bran to stay in the castle no matter what, reminding him, "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell." As Osha warns Bran that the real danger to Westeros will come from the north, in the form of White Walkers and other unmentionable creatures, it's difficult to imagine how this child, even with aid, can bear the responsibility of carrying the Stark legacy and protecting Winterfell from its numerous threats.

Robb:

For the first seven episodes of Game of Thrones, Robb largely existed on the periphery of the action, overshadowed by his father and biding his time as the temporary keeper of Winterfell in Ned's absence. Ned's imprisonment means that greatness has suddenly been thrust upon him, and in "The Pointy End," Robb proves impressively up to the task, as he gathers his allies and marches south to take on the armies of Tywin and Jaime Lannister.

Robb's decisive moment, however, comes when his troops discovered a Lannister scout spying on their camp. After questioning the scout, Robb ignores the advice of every person in the tent and lets the scout go. And when pressed on his decision, Robb explains, "My father understands mercy, when there is room for it. And he understands honor. And courage."

Robb is so fresh to the battlefield that it's difficult to read into his motives. Is it bravado, cunning, or kindness? Is he sending the scout back to Tywin with false information, or has Robb simply learned his father's mercy too well? As Robb speaks nobly of the mercy he learned from his father, Ned rots in a dungeon, lamenting the "madness of mercy" that led to his capture. Is Robb doomed to repeat his father's mistakes?

Can any of the Starks escape the roles that lineage and fate have laid out for them? As "The Pointy End" draws to a close, the Starks remain scattered across Westeros, fleeing, fighting, plotting and suffering, and things are bound to get worse before they get better. Every action has a consequence, and it's too late for Ned and Catelyn to protect their children from the cruelty of their enemies, or the horrors of war.

Note: For the sake of viewers who are experiencing the
Game of Thrones story for the first time, we request that those who have read the Song of Ice and Fire series avoid revealing spoilers for upcoming episodes in the comments section below.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.